Student Web Activity Lesson Plans

Chapter 15: Law in America

Introduction
In Miranda v. Arizona, Chief Justice Warren stated: "We have concluded that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. In order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored." In this activity, students will learn why the Court introduced the Miranda Rule to the American criminal justice system.

Lesson Description
Students will explore a Web site with the majority and dissenting opinions of Miranda v. Arizona, and answer four questions. Students will then write a short essay explaining their views on whether the Miranda Rule is necessary in today's criminal justice system.

Instructional Objectives

Learners will identify the reasoning behind the Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona.
Learners will comprehend the dissenting opinions in the case.
Learners will decide whether they believe the Miranda Rule is necessary.

Student Web Activity Answers

questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
According to the document: "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him."
They involve the dangers of false confessions, and tend to make police and prosecutors less zealous in the search for objective evidence.
According to the document: "The presence of counsel at the interrogation may serve several significant subsidiary functions as well. If the accused decides to talk to his interrogators, the assistance of counsel can mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness. With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial."
Students' essays will vary.